Taking control of aggression: Perceptions of aggression suppress the link between perceptions of facial masculinity and attractiveness
Description
From the book : Evolutionary Psychology 11 issue 5 : 1027-1043.
Women’s preferences for masculine-looking male faces are inconsistent across studies, with some studies finding a positive relationship between masculinity and attractiveness and others finding a negative relationship or no association.
One possible reason for this inconsistency is that the perception of masculinity is also associated with perceptions of aggression, which may be viewed as particularly costly to women (aggressive individuals are more likely to experience injury or death).
Based on the proposal that women’s preference for masculinity is in conflict with their aversion for aggression in male faces, we hypothesized that the bivariate associations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness would be weak or negative, but would be positive and significantly stronger after controlling statistically for perceptions of aggression.
Across three studies involving three sets of faces (n 25, 54, 24) and five sets of raters (n 29, 30, 26, 16, 10), this hypothesis was supported with the average correlation between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness (r -.09) reversing in direction and substantially increasing in magnitude after perceptions of aggression were controlled statistically (r .35).
Perceived masculinity may thus involve both attractive and unattractive components, and women’s preferences for masculinity may involve weighing its relative costs and benefits.
Women’s preferences for masculine-looking male faces are inconsistent across studies, with some studies finding a positive relationship between masculinity and attractiveness and others finding a negative relationship or no association.
One possible reason for this inconsistency is that the perception of masculinity is also associated with perceptions of aggression, which may be viewed as particularly costly to women (aggressive individuals are more likely to experience injury or death).
Based on the proposal that women’s preference for masculinity is in conflict with their aversion for aggression in male faces, we hypothesized that the bivariate associations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness would be weak or negative, but would be positive and significantly stronger after controlling statistically for perceptions of aggression.
Across three studies involving three sets of faces (n 25, 54, 24) and five sets of raters (n 29, 30, 26, 16, 10), this hypothesis was supported with the average correlation between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness (r -.09) reversing in direction and substantially increasing in magnitude after perceptions of aggression were controlled statistically (r .35).
Perceived masculinity may thus involve both attractive and unattractive components, and women’s preferences for masculinity may involve weighing its relative costs and benefits.
Sujets
Informations
| Publié par | evolutionary-psychology |
| Publié le | 01 janvier 2013 |
| Nombre de lectures | 3 |
| Licence : |
En savoir + Paternité, pas d'utilisation commerciale, partage des conditions initiales à l'identique
|
| Langue | English |
Extrait
Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2013. 11(5): 10271043
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
Taking Control of Aggression: Perceptions of Aggression Suppress the Link Between Perceptions of Facial Masculinity and Attractiveness
Shawn N. Geniole, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada. Email: shawn.geniole@brocku.ca (Corresponding author).
Cheryl M. McCormick, Department of Psychology and the Centre for Neuroscience, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada.
Abstract:Women’s preferences for masculinelooking male faces are inconsistent across studies, with some studies finding a positive relationship between masculinity and attractiveness and others finding a negative relationship or no association. One possible reason for this inconsistency is that the perception of masculinity is also associated with perceptions of aggression, which may be viewed as particularly costly to women (aggressive individuals are more likely to experience injury or death). Based on the proposal that women’s preference for masculinity is in conflict with their aversion for aggression in male faces, we hypothesized that the bivariate associations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness would be weak or negative, but would be positive and significantly stronger after controlling statistically for perceptions of aggression. Across three studies involving three sets of faces (n= 25, 54, 24) and five sets of raters (n= 29, 30, 26, 16, 10), this hypothesis was supported with the average correlation between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness (r= .09) reversing in direction and substantially increasing in magnitude after perceptions of aggression were controlled statistically (r = .35). Perceived masculinity may thus involve both attractive and unattractive components, and women’s preferences for masculinity may involve weighing its relative costs and benefits.
Keywords: attractiveness, tradeoff, sexual selection, immunocompetence, masculinity, social judgments, face perception
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯Introduction
The role of individual differences in masculine appearance in women’s mate selection is a matter of debate. On the one hand, there is evidence that masculinity may signal the quality of a potential mate, thus women should find more masculinelooking men
Taking control of aggression
more attractive than less masculinelooking men. For example, masculinity in the face was correlated positively with salivary testosterone concentrations (measured at baseline: PentonVoak and Chen, 2004; Roney, Hanson, Durante, and Maestripieri, 2006; measured after winning a competitive task: Pound, PentonVoak, and Surridge, 2009) and correlated negatively with respiratory infections, antibiotic use (Thornhill and Gangestad, 2006), and other indices of bad health (Rhodes, Chan, Zebrowitz, and Simmons, 2003). Nevertheless, women’s preferences for facial masculinity are inconsistent across studies, with some studies reporting preferences for facial femininity (reviewed in Little, Jones, and DeBruine, 2011; Scott, Clark, Boothroyd, and PentonVoak, 2012; for metaanalysis, see Rhodes, 2006). The basis for the inconsistency across studies has not yet been met with a satisfactory explanation. One proposal, supported by a metaanalysis (Rhodes, 2006), was that the differences across studies were based on whether individual male faces or composite faces, which involve the blending of many facial photographs, were used. Composite faces of men that were more feminine were preferred by women over faces that were blended to appear more masculine. Conversely, judgments of attractiveness using photographs of individual male faces were more often correlated positively with judgments of masculinity. Contrary to this metaanalysis, however, some recent studies have reported greater preferences for masculinity in composite than in individual photographs of men’s faces (Scott and PentonVoak, 2011) and negative correlations between judgments of masculinity and attractiveness using photographs of individual male faces (Geniole, Keyes, Mondloch, Carré, and McCormick, 2012). It is also possible that inconsistencies across studies exist because the masculinity attractiveness link is curvilinear rather than linear, such that women prefer men with average rather than extremely masculine or feminine features (e.g., Cunningham, Barbee, and Pike, 1990; Puts, Jones, and DeBruine, 2012). Further, the discrepancies in women’s preferences for masculinity across studies might reflect that there are costs as well as benefits to masculinity (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000; Puts et al., 2012); although masculinity may signal health (though see review by Scott et al., 2012), it also signals negative characteristics such as poor parental quality, coldness, and dishonesty (e.g., Perrett et al., 1998). Further, the dominance associated with masculinity can confer benefits (e.g., increased status: Mazur and Booth, 1998; promotion in the military: Mueller and Mazur, 1996), but the aggression associated with both dominance and masculinity can be costly (e.g., risk of injury and death; Scott et al., 2012). Judgments of attractiveness of male faces were negatively associated with judgments of meanness (Oosterhof and Todorov, 2008) and, in other studies, judgments of attractiveness were negatively associated with both aggression and masculinity, which were positively correlated with each other (Carré, McCormick, and Mondloch, 2009; Geniole et al., 2012). In the present series of studies, we investigated the possibility that women’s preference for masculinity is in conflict with their aversion for aggression in male faces. One prediction from this hypothesis is that zeroorder correlations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness would be weak and/or negative, but semipartial correlations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness (when controlling statistically for aggression) would be stronger and positive. If correct, these relationships may explain Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1028
Taking control of aggression
inconsistencies across studies with preference for masculinity depending on the extent to which the faces in the stimuli sets appeared aggressive.
Study 1
In Study 1, we used two sets of female observers and two sets of stimuli. One set rated aggression and masculinity and another set of women rated the same faces on attractiveness, desirability as a shortterm romantic partner, and desirability as a longterm romantic partner. Using two sets of observers prevented the possibility that rating masculinity may bias ratings of attractiveness.
Methods
ParticipantsTwentynine women (mean age = 19.41 years,SD 1.68 years; 86% White, 14% = other) were recruited through an undergraduate online research pool and received a $5 honorarium or a course credit for rating pictures of male faces on aggression and masculinity. A second set of female observers (n= 30, mean age = 19.43,SD= 1.30; 73% White, 27% other) were recruited to rate the same stimuli on attractiveness and desirability as a short and longterm romantic partner. All participants consented to the procedures of the study, which were approved by Brock University’s Research Ethics Board. Stimuli The stimuli included photographs of 54 digitized male faces (mean age = 20.32 years,SD= 3.13 years) and of 25 male faces (mean age= 19.52 years,SD= 1.69). In brief, 54 White male faces, posed in neutral expressions, were selected from a larger pool of faces. Only 25 of the 54 faces were cleanshaven as the study was conducted during “Movember,” when men forsake shaving to promote awareness of prostate cancer. Given facial hair may bias social judgments (e.g., de Souza, Baião, and Otta, 2003; Kenny and Fletcher, 1973), the 25 cleanshaven male faces were used as one set of stimuli, and the larger set of 54 faces were digitized, using Facegen, a 3dimensional facial modeling program (version 3.5; Singular Inversions, 2010). After digitization, facial hair was removed from the 54 faces using the “Detail Texture Modulation” analogue scale provided in Facegen. These digitized faces were also saved as 8bit greyscale, bitmap images. Digitizing faces using Facegen maintains facial structure and does not seem to alter social judgments (Carré, Morrissey, Mondloch, and McCormick, 2010; Oosterhof and Todorov, 2008). Thus, two sets of stimuli were used: One set of 25 original cleanshaven male faces, and one set of 54 digitized male faces (see Figure 1 for an example of the stimuli). Observer judgments The faces were presented for observers to rate using EPrime software and a 17 inch Dell laptop monitor (approximately 15.2 x 12.9 visual degrees when viewed from 75 cm). Before providing ratings for the block of 25 faces and the block of 54 digitized faces (order of blocks were counterbalanced across participants), participants underwent a Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1029
Taking control of aggression
familiarization phase wherein they viewed (for 1000 ms each) and rated six practice faces that were selected from a different set of stimuli. After rating the practice faces, one of the faces from the block of real or digitized faces was presented individually for 1000 ms, after which a question and corresponding response scale appeared. One set of participants provided ratings of aggression and of masculinity whereas the other set of participants provided ratings of attractiveness and of short and longterm desirability as a romantic partner. For ratings of aggression, the question was “How aggressive would this person be if provoked?” Responses were made using a 7point Likert scale (1 =not at all, 7 =very much so). Once the participant entered a response using a Dell Laptop standard keyboard (participants were given an unlimited time to make a response), the next photo appeared and this process continued until all faces within a block were rated on aggression. After providing ratings of aggression, participants rated the same faces again on masculinity; the specific question was “How masculine does this person look?” Participants provided responses on the same 7point Likert scale as was used for ratings of aggression. The order of the presentation of faces within each block was randomized across participants. After rating an entire block of faces (25 real or 54 digitized) on aggression and masculinity, participants completed a short demographic questionnaire and rated the second block of faces on the same characteristics. Participants also provided ratings of trustworthiness after aggression and before masculinity; these ratings were obtained to answer a separate set of research questions and will not be discussed further. The second set of participants rated the same two blocks of faces on attractiveness (“How attractive does this person look?” ; 1 =not at all, 7 =very attractive), shortterm desirability [“If you were (or are) single, how desirable would you find this person for a ‘onenight stand’?”; 1 =not at all, 7 =very desirable], and longterm desirability [“If you were (or are) single, how desirable would you find this person for a longterm romantic relationship?”; 1 =not at all, 7 =very desirable], with the order of the latter two judgments counterbalanced across participants. Responses to all three judgments were made using 7 point Likert scales. Figure 1.Examples of the original cleanshaven (Panel A) and digitized faces (Panel B) used in Study 1,
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1030
Taking control of aggression
Statistical analyses Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine if ratings of aggression and of masculinity were correlated within individual observers as well as for the group, and if attractiveness and short and longterm desirability were correlated within individual observers and for the group (see McCormick, 2013). Onesamplettests were computed on the Fisherz transformed correlations to test the hypothesis that the correlations between masculinity and aggression and between attractiveness and short and longterm desirability within individual observers would be significantly different from zero (i.e., share no association). Using linear regression, judgments of masculinity and of aggressiveness obtained from the first set of female observers were entered as simultaneous predictors of each of the judgments obtained by the second set of observers (attractiveness, shortterm desirability, longterm desirability). Semipartial correlations (sr) are reported from these models to allow for direct comparison between the strength of the masculinity attractiveness link when using zeroorder correlations, and when controlling for judgments of aggression. An alpha value ofp< 0.05, twotailed, was used to determine statistical significance.
Results
Analysis of individual observers: Relationships between masculinity and aggression and between attractiveness and short and longterm desirability In the 25 cleanshaven original faces, judgments of masculinity were significantly and positively correlated with judgments of aggression for 11 of the 29 observers (M= .32, C.I. = .20 to .44; onesamplettest:t(28) = 5.36,p 0.001). Judgments of attractiveness < were significantly and positively correlated with shortterm desirability for 27 of the 30 observers (M= .78, C.I. = .68 to .88; onesamplettest:t(29) = 16.24,p< 0.001) and with longterm desirability for 26 of the 30 observers (M= .72, C.I. = .62 to .83; onesamplet test:t 14.19,(29) =p< 0.001). Shortterm and longterm desirability were significantly and positively correlated for 28 of the 30 observers (M= .89, C.I. = .77 to 1.00; onesamplet test:t 15.60,(29) =p< 0.001).In the 54 digitized faces, judgments of masculinity were significantly and positively correlated with judgments of aggression for 17 of the 29 observers (M= .33, C.I. = .25 to .41; onesamplettest:t(28) = 8.32,p < 0.001). Judgments of attractiveness were significantly and positively correlated with shortterm desirability for 21 of the 30 observers (M= .43, C.I. = .32 to .54; onesamplettest:t 8.21,(29) =p< 0.001) and with longterm desirability for 22 of the 30 observers (M= .47, C.I. = .37 to .57; onesamplet test:t(29) = 9.65,p< 0.001). Shortterm and longterm desirability were significantly and positively correlated for 25 of the 30 observers (M .53, C.I. = .42 to .64; onesample =t test:t(29) = 9.80,p< 0.001).Bivariate correlations between judgments provided by the two sets of participants See Table 1 for descriptive statistics. In the 25 cleanshaven original faces, judgments of aggression and of masculinity were positively correlated, and judgments of aggression shared a significant negative association with judgments of shortterm Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1031
Taking control of aggression
desirability and marginal negative associations with attractiveness and longterm desirability (see Table 2). Attractiveness and short and longterm desirability shared strong positive correlations.
Ratings
Study 1 (29 women judging 25 real faces) Aggression MasculinityStudy 1 (30 women judging 25 real faces)AttractivenessShortterm Desirability
Study 1 (29 women judging 54 digitized faces) Aggression
Study 1 (30 women judging 54 digitized faces)AttractivenessShortterm Desirability Longterm Desirability Study 2 (26 women judging 54 digitized faces)AttractivenessMasculinity
M(SD)
3.93 (0.85) 4.43 (0.84)
2.97 (.74) 2.44 (.78)
4.00 (.89)
3.04 (.66)
2.69 (.63) 2.94 (.72)
3.22 (.74) 4.59 (.63)
Study 3: Carré et al. (2009) (16 women judging 24 real faces)Aggression 4.17 (1.06) Masculinity 4.88 (.96)
Cronbach’sα
.92
.92 .93 .93
.93
.90 .87 .90
.91 .87
.94 .93
.73 .88 .88
Study 3: Geniole et al. (2012) (10 women judging 24 real faces)Aggression 4.18 (.78) Masculinity 4.55 (.99) Attractiveness 3.10 (.98) Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1032
Taking control of aggression
Table 2.Correlations among judgments of aggression and masculinity obtained in Study 1 (29 observers), and judgments of attractiveness and short and longterm desirability
Real Faces (n = 25)Masculinity AttractivenessST Desirability LT Desirability
Aggression
Digitized Faces (n = 54)MasculinityAttractivenessST Desirability
.59
.36 .43 .36
.75 .64 .57
Masculinity
.25 .21 .28
.22 .17
Attractiveness
.95
.93
Desirability
Notes:ST = shortterm; LT = longterm; Correlations in bold are significant (p< 0.05) In the 54 digitized faces, judgments of aggression were correlated positively with masculinity and negatively with attractiveness and short and longterm desirability (see Table 2). Judgments of masculinity shared marginal negative associations with judgments of attractiveness and of longterm desirability (ps = .10 and .11, respectively). Judgments of attractiveness and short and longterm desirability shared strong positive correlations. Does aggression suppress the relationship between masculinity and attractiveness, and between masculinity and short and longterm desirability? If judgmentsof aggression suppress the masculinityattractiveness relationship, we would expect the association between masculinity and attractiveness to increase in magnitude and/or change in direction when judgments of aggression are controlled statistically (Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken, 2003). In the 25 original cleanshaven faces, the nonsignificant bivariate association between masculinity and attractiveness (r .25) = increased in magnitude and became significant (sr= .57,t= 3.63,p< 0.01; see Figure 2A) when judgments of aggression (sr= .63,t= 3.97,p< 0.01) were added as a simultaneous predictor. The same pattern of results emerged when examining judgments of short and longterm desirability: The nonsignificant bivariate associations between masculinity and shortterm desirability (rbetween masculinity and longterm desirability ( .21) and =r = .28) increased in magnitude and became significant (shortterm model: sr= .58,t= 3.92,p< 0.01; longterm model:sr= .61,t= 4.00,p< 0.01) when judgments of aggression (short term:sr= .69,t= 4.65,p< 0.001; longterm:sr= .65,t= 4.26,p< 0.001) were added as a simultaneous predictor. To ensure that these findings were not obscured by the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1033
Taking control of aggression
correlation between masculinity and aggression, variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated. VIFs were = 1.54 for masculinity and aggression, indicating that the suppression effects are not likely the results of extreme multicollinearity (many researchers have suggested that variance inflation factors greater than 10 are problematic; e.g., Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1995; Neter, Wasserman, and Kutner, 1989). In the 54 digitized faces, the marginal negative correlation between masculinity and attractiveness (r = .22) reversed in direction, increased in magnitude, and became significant (sr= .37,t= 3.96,p< 0.001; see Figure 2B) when judgments of aggression (sr= .70,t= 7.44,p< 0.001) were added as a simultaneous predictor. Similarly, the negative correlations between masculinity and shortterm desirability (r .17) and between = masculinity and longterm desirability (r = .22) reversed in direction, increased in magnitude, and became significant (shortterm model: sr .38, =t = 3.71,p 0.01; long < term model:sr= .34,t= 3.31,p< 0.01) when judgments of aggression (shortterm:sr= .66,t 6.50, =p 0.001; longterm: <sr = .65,t = 6.37,p 0.001) were added as a < simultaneous predictor. The correlation between judgments of masculinity (or judgments of aggression) and shortterm desirability did not differ from the correlation between judgments of masculinity (or judgments of aggression) and longterm desirability in either the real or the digitized faces (allps > 0.78).
Study 2
To replicate and extend the findings of Study 1, a new set of female observers provided ratings of all three relevant characteristics. To avoid potential biases in judgments that may result from rating faces on aggression or masculinity before attractiveness, observers in Study 2 rated attractiveness first, masculinity second, and aggression third. The 54 digitized faces from Study 1 were used as stimuli in Study 2.
Methods
ParticipantsTwentysix women (mean age = 20.69,SD = 3.46; 81% White, 19% other) were recruited through an undergraduate online research pool and received a $5 honorarium or a course credit for participation. All participants consented to the procedures of the study, which were approved by Brock University’s Research Ethics Board. Stimuli The stimuli for this study were the same 54 digitized faces described in Study 1. Observer judgments The same procedures from Study 1 were used except that participants rated attractiveness, masculinity, and aggression (in that order). Ratings were provided using 7 point Likert scales, as described in Study 1. Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1034
Taking control of aggression
Statistical analyses The statistical analyses were the same as in Study 1. Figure 2.Scatter plots showing the relationships between masculinity and attractiveness before (scatter plots at left) and after controlling for aggression (scatter plots at right). Panel A (25 real faces) and Panel B (54 digitized faces) show the relationships from Study 1, Panel C (54 digitized faces) shows the relationships from Study 2, and Panel D (24 real faces, Carré et al., 2009) and E (24 real faces, Geniole et al., 2012) show the relationships from
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1035
Results
Taking control of aggression
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1036
Masculinity Ratings Attractiveness Ratings Note:Correlations in bold are significant (p< 0.05)
.74
.19
.66
.26
Analysis of individual observers: Relationships between attractiveness, masculinity, and aggressionJudgments of attractiveness were significantly and negatively correlated with judgments of masculinity for 5, and positively for 2, of the 26 observers (M= .02, C.I. = .12 to .08; onesamplettest:t(25) = 0.41,p = 0.68). Judgments of attractiveness were significantly and negatively correlated with judgments of aggression for 6, and positively for 1, of the 26 observers (M= .10, C.I. = .20 to .01; onesamplettest:t(25) = 1.80,p= 0.08). Judgments of masculinity and aggression were significantly and positively correlated for 14 of the 26 observers (M= .30, C.I. = .22 to .37; onesamplettest:t(25) = 7.80,p< 0.001).Bivariate correlations among judgments See Table 1 for descriptive statistics. Judgments of masculinity and of aggression were correlated positively, but only judgments of aggression were correlated negatively with judgments of attractiveness (see Table 3). The nonsignificant correlation between masculinity and attractiveness (r= .02) reversed in direction, increased in magnitude, and became marginally significant (sr= .22,t= 1.72,p= 0.09; see Figure 2C) when judgments of aggression (sr= .37,t= 2.82,p< 0.01) were added as a simultaneous predictor (VIF = 1.76). Table 3.between the judgments of attractiveness, masculinity, and aggressionCorrelations in Study 2 and in Study 3 Aggression Masculinity Ratings Ratings
Study 2 (26 women judging 54 digitized faces)
Masculinity Ratings
Study 3: Carré et al. (2009) (16 women judging 24 real faces)
Masculinity Ratings Attractiveness Ratings
.80 .51 Study 3: Geniole et al. (2012) (10 women judging 24 real faces)
Study 3
Taking control of aggression
As an additional test of our hypothesis that aggression suppresses the masculinity attractiveness relationship, we also analyzed data from two previously published studies (Experiment 1 of Carré et al., 2009; Experiment 1 of Geniole et al., 2012). See Table 1 for descriptive statistics from both of these studies. In Experiment 1 of Carré et al. (2009), 16 women provided judgments of aggression, masculinity, and attractiveness for 24 White, shaved, male faces posing in neutral expressions. Judgments of aggression and masculinity were correlated positively, but only judgments of aggression shared a significant negative association with judgments of attractiveness (see Table 3). Nevertheless, the non significant correlation between masculinity and attractiveness (r .19) reversed in = direction, increased in magnitude, and became significant (sr= .35,t= 2.06,p= 0.05; see Figure 2D) when judgments of aggression (sr= .59,t= 3.43,p< 0.01) were added as a simultaneous predictor (VIF = 2.74). In Study 1 of Geniole et al. (2012), in which 10 women rated the same 24 male faces used in Carré et al. (2009), judgments of aggression and of masculinity were positively correlated, but only judgments of aggression shared a significant and negative association with judgments of attractiveness (see Table 3). The negative correlation between masculinity and attractiveness (r= .26) reversed in direction (sr= .11,t= 0.56,p = 0.58; see Figure 2E) when judgments of aggression (sr= .38,t= 1.97,p= 0.06) were added as a simultaneous predictor (VIF = 2.24). Supplementary analysis: Does aggression suppress the masculinityattractiveness relationship when effects from each study are combined in a single analysis? To determine if aggression had a suppression effect on the masculinity attractiveness relationships across the studies reported here, the bivariate correlations between masculinity and attractiveness, and the semipartial correlations between masculinity and attractiveness (controlling for aggression) were transformed into Fisherzscores and compared using a pairedsamplesttest. The difference between the bivariateand semipartial correlations was significant,t(4) = 6.57,p< 0.01, Cohen’sd= 2.95 (see Figure 3), indicating that aggression significantly suppressed the masculinityattractiveness relationships across the studies reported here. Given the link between the facial widthto height ratio and aggression reported in previous studies (e.g., Carré et al., 2009, 2010; Geniole et al., 2012; Short et al., 2012) and here (see Table 4 for correlations among variables), we also reran these analyses after substituting this metric for judgments of aggression in the statistical models. The paired samplesttest revealed that this metric also suppressed the relationship between masculinity and attractiveness across the studies,t(4) = 3.15,p= 0.04; although the effect size was large (Cohen’sd= 0.74), it was smaller than was the effect size of 2.95 when perceptions of aggression were used. This difference in effect sizes might be expected given that tradeoffs made by women likely reflect their perceptions of traits in potential mates, which are influenced by facial features, rather than the facial features themselves.Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 14747049 – Volume 11(5). 2013. 1037
© 2010-2024 YouScribe